Office of the Attorney General
State of Texas

Re: Whether a city or county can require disclosure of public
officials assets and income.

Dear Chairman Snelson:

You have requested our opinion regarding whether municipalities
and counties may require their public officials to file financial
disclosure statements as a condition of holding office. Although
you have not provided us with the details of the content of any
such proposed financial statements, we assume for purposes of
discussion that they would contain information similar to that
required of certain state officials by article 6252-9b, V.T.C.S.

It is well established that a home rule city may exercise any
power not inconsistent with the Texas Constitution or with
general law. Tex. Const. art. 11, s 5; V.T.C.S. art. 1165; City
of Sweetwater v. Geron, 380 S.W.2d 550, 552 (Tex. 1964); Wagstaff
v. City of Groves, 419 S.W.2d 441, 443 (Tex. Civ. App.-- Beaumont
1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.). As we noted in Attorney General
Opinion
H-15 (1973), the public has 'a legitimate interest in
the current financial condition and recent financial history of
those of its servants who are in positions of authority.' Id. at
2. On that basis, we have upheld the constitutional validity of
article 6252-9b. Attorney General Opinion
H-190 (1973).

There appears to be no constitutional or statutory provision
which would per se prohibit a home rule city from requiring that
its officials file financial disclosure statements as a condition
of holding office. The Texas Election Code imposes certain
eligibility requirements upon persons who hold elective office,
and specifically permits a home rule city to prescribe 'different
age and residence requirements from those prescribed' by statute.
Election Code, art. 1.05 (Subdiv. 3.). In addition, a number of
other statutes prescribe further eligibility requirements for
certain offices. See e.g. V.T.C.S. arts. 987, 1003, 1004. Even
assuming that requiring the filing of these financial statements
would constitute a 'qualification' for office, the statutory
qualifications have not been deemed exclusive and since neither
the Constitution nor any statute per se prohibits the imposition
of additional requirements, we believe that a home rule city is
authorized to prescribe them.

We are supported in this conclusion by a number of decisions
from other jurisdictions. The general rule is that a city may
establish conditions for holding a municipal office in addition
to those imposed by state law, so long as such conditions are not
inconsistent therewith. See e.g. Doyle v. City of Dearborn, 121
N.W.2d 473, 475-76 (Mich. 1963); State ex rel. Isham v. City of
Spokane, 98 P.2d 306, 309 (Wash. 1940); Lindsey v. Dominguez, 20
P.2d 327, 328 (Cal. 1933). Of course, no condition of holding
office may be prescribed in contravention of the due process and
equal protection guarantees of the State and Federal
Constitution. Thompson v. Gallagher, 489 F.2d 443, 449 (5th Cir.
1973). Furthermore, if the requirement of financial disclosure is
imposed by ordinance, the municipality must first determine that
such ordinance is not in violation of any provision of its
charter. City of Fort Worth v. Lillard, 272 S.W. 577, 580 (Tex.
Civ. App.--Ft. Worth 1925), aff'd 294 S.W. 831 (Tex. 1927). In
general, however, it is our opinion that a home rule city is
authorized to require its public officials to file financial
disclosure statements as a condition of holding office.

As to general law cities, their powers are derived from article
11, section 4 of the Texas Constitution. While home rule cities
are authorized to amend their charters and adopt ordinances,
subject only to the limitation that neither charter nor ordinance
may be inconsistent with the Constitution or with general law, no
such power is granted to general law cities. It is generally
held that non-home rule municipalities have only those powers
which are specifically granted them by the Legislature. Ex parte
Farley, 144 S.W. 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1912); State ex rel. Rea v.
Etheridge, 32 S.W.2d 828, 830 (Tex. Comm'n. App. 1930), jdgmt
adopted, 36 S.W.2d 983 (Tex. 1937); Lindsley v. Dallas
Consolidated Street Railway Co., 200 S.W. 207, 211 (Tex. Civ.
App.-- Dallas 1917, no writ).

Counties, too, have only those powers which are clearly set
forth in the Constitution and statutes. Harrison County v. City
of Marshall, 253 S.W.2d 67, 69 (Tex. Civ. App.--Ft. Worth 1952,
writ ref'd); Wichita County v. Vance, 217 S.W.2d 702, 703 (Tex.
Civ. App.--Ft. Worth 1949, writ ref'd n.r.e.). It is thus our
view that neither a non-home rule city nor county may require its
officials to file financial disclosure statements without express
authorization from the Legislature.

SUMMARY

Home rule cities may require their public officials to file
financial disclosure statements as a condition of holding office,
but general law cities and counties may not do so without express
authorization from the Legislature.